Pilgrim1620 wrote:Is that an accurate characterization of where the Tea Party position stands at this point? That sounds like just a re-positioning of long-standing Republican politics, the promise of tax cuts and smaller government, without any specifics about where savings and cuts will really come from.

My first experience with third-party politics was with Perot, and I remember where that went.

Perot is the reason Bill Clinton was elected president. Perot took votes away from Bush Sr. Perot got 19 percent of the vote. The reason lefties like you don't like the Tea Party or Ralph Nader, is that they take votes away from democrats.

If you were willing to do a little more research on the Tea Party or talk to one of their reps, you would know exactly where they stand and what specifics and solutions they are offering. Since you have probably already made up your mind to be against the Tea Party, you probably won't bother.

&gt;How long have we been hearing from moderate, sensible, worldly Republican types that if only ??? if only ??? the right found God on economic issues and lost God on the social ones there would be an expansion of appeal and support? Apparently they were right.

The "right" has never had God on economic issues, while the Left has never had Him on social issues. That's the whole problem in this country.

kylethornhill wrote:All of these Tea Party folks suddenly became alarmed about the size of government when we elected a black man as President. When Bush was President they were facists; with the election of O'Bama, they suddenly discovered libertarianism. The bottom line is having a black man in the White House is driving a lot of folks crazy.

Along with a Latina on the Supreme Court, and Asian man nominated to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.

It's fun to watch The Beckster's head explode on network TV.

BTW, is Limbaugh broadcasting from Costa Rica yet, or was his promise to move simply one more lie?

BTW, since when are "scores" of people a mass? Looks like the Tea Party Members scoured Colfax to get people to attend.

What is "extreme right"? I think I got extreme left down since I have been subject to NPR, PBS, the Alphabet Soup media, MoveOn, Air America and Obamasiah.. What is "moderate left", just a little tyranny? And what is a little to them? What is the extreme right? It's not anarchy I do know that. I guess if I say the founder's intent is timeless, is that "extreme" right? http://www.fatheromalley.com

fatheromalley wrote:What is "extreme right"? I think I got extreme left down since I have been subject to NPR, PBS, the Alphabet Soup media, MoveOn, Air America and Obamasiah.. What is "moderate left", just a little tyranny? And what is a little to them? What is the extreme right? It's not anarchy I do know that. I guess if I say the founder's intent is timeless, is that "extreme" right? http://www.fatheromalley.com

In fact it is.

The Founders' intent was not to create a Constitution that would be like a beetle encased in amber.

They were smarter than that; they knew that they were writing a document not only for their time, but also for our time.

They deliberately made it subject to changing interpretation as times changed.

Only the hard right would want to go back to an 18th Century interpretation of that founding document.

fatheromalley wrote:What is "extreme right"? I guess if I say the founder's intent is timeless, is that "extreme" right? http://www.fatheromalley.com

In fact it is.

The Founders' intent was not to create a Constitution that would be like a beetle encased in amber.

They were smarter than that; they knew that they were writing a document not only for their time, but also for our time.

They deliberately made it subject to changing interpretation as times changed.

Only the hard right would want to go back to an 18th Century interpretation of that founding document.

And there you have one of the fundamental difference between left and right.

The right believes in the principles as stated in our founding documents and the left believes everything is subject to their interpretation.

Believing in the constitution is NOT extremist. And it was NOT written to be "subject to changing interpretation as times changed." It was written with a mechanism by which it could be changed, by the people and their our representatives, as times warranted but that is not to say it's subject to "interpretation."

Only "extreme" lefties even suggest that those of us who believe in and support the constitution want to go back to the 18th century or as Whoopi alleged, want to go back to slavery. That's just absurd, hateful, and insane. No one wants that. The constitution was "constitutionally" changed and we "constitutional" types are particularly proud of that.

It's the ever evolving "interpretation" by the courts and the left that we reject.

We believe in a limited central government because history has taught us that's the only way people have the freedom, liberty and individual rights. Our founders gave us a Republic and proved that was how a nation and its people prosper. The left's attempts to destroy all that and become a nation like all the others seems not just radical and extreme but stupid and crazy.

BAW wrote:And there you have one of the fundamental difference between left and right.

The right believes in the principles as stated in our founding documents and the left believes everything is subject to their interpretation.

Believing in the constitution is NOT extremist. And it was NOT written to be "subject to changing interpretation as times changed." It was written with a mechanism by which it could be changed, by the people and their our representatives, as times warranted but that is not to say it's subject to "interpretation."

Only "extreme" lefties even suggest that those of us who believe in and support the constitution want to go back to the 18th century or as Whoopi alleged, want to go back to slavery. That's just absurd, hateful, and insane. No one wants that. The constitution was "constitutionally" changed and we "constitutional" types are particularly proud of that.

It's the ever evolving "interpretation" by the courts and the left that we reject.

We believe in a limited central government because history has taught us that's the only way people have the freedom, liberty and individual rights. Our founders gave us a Republic and proved that was how a nation and its people prosper. The left's attempts to destroy all that and become a nation like all the others seems not just radical and extreme but stupid and crazy.

It seems to me it's a bit more complex than that.

Let's take a couple of issues in an arena generally near and dear to Americans, the military.

The Constitution specifically mentions the Army, and the Navy. Under a strict constitutionalist view, should the Air Force be eliminated as a separate service, and rolled back into the two constitutionally authorized services? Do we need a constitutional amendment to authorize an Air Force? Or does Congress indeed have the power to create institutions necessity by the advance of modernity, unforeseeable by the founders?

The Constitution specifies the existence of state militias, and at least by context and intent we know that founders expected the US to have only a very small Army to defend the nation's arsenals, disliking a standing Army - in 1789, there was only a single regiment. The National Guard that we have today (which actually exists alongside unmanned state militias that are a still-extant legal artifact) exists as it does, nominally under state control but largely under the control of the Pentagon, because its predecessors consistently failed to be prepared for mobilization in wartime, infested and made ineffectual by local politics and cronyism, and chronic underfunding by the states. Do we go back to that old situation as a matter of strict interpretation, and states' rights; or, once again, would it take a constitutional amendment not only to properly authorize the National Guard in its existing form, but to make clear that Congress has the power to maintain large standing armed forces?

Does every institution and function of government that exists today - from the FBI to the FAA and the NRC - not specifically laid out in the Constitution, require disbanding or a else a new constitutional amendment to authorize them; or is there some specific line you can draw between what "interpretation" of the Constitution's principles and intent is permitted as history progresses, and what is not?

How many constitutional amendments would be required, disallowing legislative and judicial interpretations that have been made in the past two and some centuries, to authorize the sort of government you think should exist, if we're not to go back to the bare bones of the 18th century?

EDIT: fix spelling

Last edited by Pilgrim1620 on April 17th, 2010, 3:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

“The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present.....We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.” - Abraham Lincoln, annual message to Congress, December 1, 1862

fatheromalley wrote:What is "extreme right"? I guess if I say the founder's intent is timeless, is that "extreme" right? http://www.fatheromalley.com

In fact it is.

The Founders' intent was not to create a Constitution that would be like a beetle encased in amber.

They were smarter than that; they knew that they were writing a document not only for their time, but also for our time.

They deliberately made it subject to changing interpretation as times changed.

Only the hard right would want to go back to an 18th Century interpretation of that founding document.

And there you have one of the fundamental difference between left and right.

The right believes in the principles as stated in our founding documents and the left believes everything is subject to their interpretation.

Believing in the constitution is NOT extremist. And it was NOT written to be "subject to changing interpretation as times changed." It was written with a mechanism by which it could be changed, by the people and their our representatives, as times warranted but that is not to say it's subject to "interpretation."

Only "extreme" lefties even suggest that those of us who believe in and support the constitution want to go back to the 18th century or as Whoopi alleged, want to go back to slavery. That's just absurd, hateful, and insane. No one wants that. The constitution was "constitutionally" changed and we "constitutional" types are particularly proud of that.

It's the ever evolving "interpretation" by the courts and the left that we reject.

We believe in a limited central government because history has taught us that's the only way people have the freedom, liberty and individual rights. Our founders gave us a Republic and proved that was how a nation and its people prosper. The left's attempts to destroy all that and become a nation like all the others seems not just radical and extreme but stupid and crazy.

So then you come down strongly in favor of kiddie porn and same sex marriage, right?

After all, doesn't the First Amendment say "Congress shall make NO LAW abridging Freedom of the Press."?

Doesn't the Fourteenth Amendment say that "No State shall make any law denying to any of its citizens the Equal Protection of the Laws."?

thecap wrote:So then you come down strongly in favor of kiddie porn and same sex marriage, right?

After all, doesn't the First Amendment say "Congress shall make NO LAW abridging Freedom of the Press."?

Doesn't the Fourteenth Amendment say that "No State shall make any law denying to any of its citizens the Equal Protection of the Laws."?

Bet you didn't stop to think about those little gems.

I'm all for same-sex marriage (or getting the government out of the marriage business)"kiddie porn" is prohibited because it involves criminal acts beyond expression; the same way I can't film and publish myself kill someone then say killing someone is protected by the first amendment.

Lord Worm wrote:"kiddie porn" is prohibited because it involves criminal acts beyond expression; the same way I can't film and publish myself kill someone then say killing someone is protected by the first amendment.

"Kiddie porn" can just be pictures of naked children, not necessarily involving other "acts" of the sort I think you are referring to - except to the extent that the photography itself has been criminalized. Or what if it's a picture of two young children engaged in the sort of "natural" sex exploration play - not itself illegal a criminal act, I don't believe - that kids that age sometimes get involved in?

It gets complicated when it gets down to actual details, doesn't it? That's why we've struggled with these issues for over 200 years.

“The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present.....We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.” - Abraham Lincoln, annual message to Congress, December 1, 1862

Lord Worm wrote:"kiddie porn" is prohibited because it involves criminal acts beyond expression; the same way I can't film and publish myself kill someone then say killing someone is protected by the first amendment.

"Kiddie porn" can just be pictures of naked children, not necessarily involving other "acts" of the sort I think you are referring to - except to the extent that the photography itself has been criminalized. Or what if it's a picture of two young children engaged in the sort of "natural" sex exploration play - not itself illegal a criminal act, I don't believe - that kids that age sometimes get involved in?

It gets complicated when it gets down to actual details, doesn't it? That's why we've struggled with these issues for over 200 years.

Not really. The child is an unwilling third party (unwilling because the child cannot legally consent)The struggle is only because the lefties and righties can't agree on which freedoms they both want to restrict.

Lord Worm wrote:Not really. The child is an unwilling third party (unwilling because the child cannot legally consent)The struggle is only because the lefties and righties can't agree on which freedoms they both want to restrict.

Cannot legally consent to what? Having their picture taken? Obviously it's legal to take a picture of a child, or two children, playing - and publish it - under most circumstances. What - particularly, under the Constitution - clearly defines the circumstances under which such a picture is (and, should be) a crime? (note my previous point that "child porn" is not just the most obvious case of pictures of sex acts between children and adults)

It's still not easy.....

“The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present.....We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.” - Abraham Lincoln, annual message to Congress, December 1, 1862

Lord Worm wrote:Not really. The child is an unwilling third party (unwilling because the child cannot legally consent)The struggle is only because the lefties and righties can't agree on which freedoms they both want to restrict.

Cannot legally consent to what? Having their picture taken? Obviously it's legal to take a picture of a child, or two children, playing - and publish it - under most circumstances. What - particularly, under the Constitution - clearly defines the circumstances under which such a picture is (and, should be) a crime? (note my previous point that "child porn" is not just the most obvious case of pictures of sex acts between children and adults)

It's still not easy.....

In fact, it's VERY easy if one accepts the rightie notion that the Constitution was written on two tablets of stone instead of parchment.

After all, can the words "NO LAW" be "interpreted" to mean anything but NO LAW, not a single one?

Note also that this says not a single word about how the stuff gets produced. Under the righties' theory of the Constitution, it can't be stopped once it enters the stream of commerce.

BAW wrote:And there you have one of the fundamental difference between left and right.

The right believes in the principles as stated in our founding documents and the left believes everything is subject to their interpretation.

Believing in the constitution is NOT extremist. And it was NOT written to be "subject to changing interpretation as times changed." It was written with a mechanism by which it could be changed, by the people and their our representatives, as times warranted but that is not to say it's subject to "interpretation."

Only "extreme" lefties even suggest that those of us who believe in and support the constitution want to go back to the 18th century or as Whoopi alleged, want to go back to slavery. That's just absurd, hateful, and insane. No one wants that. The constitution was "constitutionally" changed and we "constitutional" types are particularly proud of that.

It's the ever evolving "interpretation" by the courts and the left that we reject.

We believe in a limited central government because history has taught us that's the only way people have the freedom, liberty and individual rights. Our founders gave us a Republic and proved that was how a nation and its people prosper. The left's attempts to destroy all that and become a nation like all the others seems not just radical and extreme but stupid and crazy.

It seems to me it's a bit more complex than that.

Let's take a couple of issues in an arena generally near and dear to Americans, the military.

The Constitution specifically mentions the Army, and the Navy. Under a strict constitutionalist view, should the Air Force be eliminated as a separate service, and rolled back into the two constitutionally authorized services? Do we need a constitutional amendment to authorize an Air Force? Or does Congress indeed have the power to create institutions necessity by the advance of modernity, unforeseeable by the founders?

The Constitution specifies the existence of state militias, and at least by context and intent we know that founders expected the US to have only a very small Army to defend the nation's arsenals, disliking a standing Army - in 1789, there was only a single regiment. The National Guard that we have today (which actually exists alongside unmanned state militias that are a still-extant legal artifact) exists as it does, nominally under state control but largely under the control of the Pentagon, because its predecessors consistently failed to be prepared for mobilization in wartime, infested and made ineffectual by local politics and cronyism, and chronic underfunding by the states. Do we go back to that old situation as a matter of strict interpretation, and states' rights; or, once again, would it take a constitutional amendment not only to properly authorize the National Guard in its existing form, but to make clear that Congress has the power to maintain large standing armed forces?

Does every institution and function of government that exists today - from the FBI to the FAA and the NRC - not specifically laid out in the Constitution, require disbanding or a else a new constitutional amendment to authorize them; or is there some specific line you can draw between what "interpretation" of the Constitution's principles and intent is permitted as history progresses, and what is not?

How many constitutional amendments would be required, disallowing legislative and judicial interpretations that have been made in the past two and some centuries, to authorize the sort of government you think should exist, if we're not to go back to the bare bones of the 18th century?

EDIT: fix spelling

While I readily agree that legal parsing makes everything more "complex" than it should be, that is the nature of an adversarial system.

Your Air Force argument, however, fails even with a "literal" interpretation because courts reject any "literal" interpretation that results in an absurd result.

What you refer to as a "strict constitutionalist view" is actually the well established principle of "plain meaning" legal interpretation. A long standing and well founded rule of construction based on the constitutional principle that judges do not legislate. And that neither advocates nor in reality take us “back to the bare bones of the 18th century.”

In combination with “intent,” using the plain meaning of the constitution allows for “the advance of modernity, unforeseeable by the founders.”

When written, the 1st amendment applied to a “press” far different from the press we have today. But again, it would be absurd to say “press” did not apply to radio, television, or the internet. Parsing notwithstanding.

I don't know what you base your "legal arguments" on "constitutional interpretation" but in my opinion, the "specific line you can draw" should be determined by the principles established through the clear language in conjunction with the clear intent of the constitution.

BAW wrote:And there you have one of the fundamental difference between left and right.

The right believes in the principles as stated in our founding documents and the left believes everything is subject to their interpretation.

Believing in the constitution is NOT extremist. And it was NOT written to be "subject to changing interpretation as times changed." It was written with a mechanism by which it could be changed, by the people and their our representatives, as times warranted but that is not to say it's subject to "interpretation."

Only "extreme" lefties even suggest that those of us who believe in and support the constitution want to go back to the 18th century or as Whoopi alleged, want to go back to slavery. That's just absurd, hateful, and insane. No one wants that. The constitution was "constitutionally" changed and we "constitutional" types are particularly proud of that.

It's the ever evolving "interpretation" by the courts and the left that we reject.

We believe in a limited central government because history has taught us that's the only way people have the freedom, liberty and individual rights. Our founders gave us a Republic and proved that was how a nation and its people prosper. The left's attempts to destroy all that and become a nation like all the others seems not just radical and extreme but stupid and crazy.

It seems to me it's a bit more complex than that.

Let's take a couple of issues in an arena generally near and dear to Americans, the military.

The Constitution specifically mentions the Army, and the Navy. Under a strict constitutionalist view, should the Air Force be eliminated as a separate service, and rolled back into the two constitutionally authorized services? Do we need a constitutional amendment to authorize an Air Force? Or does Congress indeed have the power to create institutions necessity by the advance of modernity, unforeseeable by the founders?

The Constitution specifies the existence of state militias, and at least by context and intent we know that founders expected the US to have only a very small Army to defend the nation's arsenals, disliking a standing Army - in 1789, there was only a single regiment. The National Guard that we have today (which actually exists alongside unmanned state militias that are a still-extant legal artifact) exists as it does, nominally under state control but largely under the control of the Pentagon, because its predecessors consistently failed to be prepared for mobilization in wartime, infested and made ineffectual by local politics and cronyism, and chronic underfunding by the states. Do we go back to that old situation as a matter of strict interpretation, and states' rights; or, once again, would it take a constitutional amendment not only to properly authorize the National Guard in its existing form, but to make clear that Congress has the power to maintain large standing armed forces?

Does every institution and function of government that exists today - from the FBI to the FAA and the NRC - not specifically laid out in the Constitution, require disbanding or a else a new constitutional amendment to authorize them; or is there some specific line you can draw between what "interpretation" of the Constitution's principles and intent is permitted as history progresses, and what is not?

How many constitutional amendments would be required, disallowing legislative and judicial interpretations that have been made in the past two and some centuries, to authorize the sort of government you think should exist, if we're not to go back to the bare bones of the 18th century?

EDIT: fix spelling

While I readily agree that legal parsing makes everything more "complex" than it should be, that is the nature of an adversarial system.

Your Air Force argument, however, fails even with a "literal" interpretation because courts reject any "literal" interpretation that results in an absurd result.

What you refer to as a "strict constitutionalist view" is actually the well established principle of "plain meaning" legal interpretation. A long standing and well founded rule of construction based on the constitutional principle that judges do not legislate. And that neither advocates nor in reality take us “back to the bare bones of the 18th century.”

In combination with “intent,” using the plain meaning of the constitution allows for “the advance of modernity, unforeseeable by the founders.”

When written, the 1st amendment applied to a “press” far different from the press we have today. But again, it would be absurd to say “press” did not apply to radio, television, or the internet. Parsing notwithstanding.

I don't know what you base your "legal arguments" on "constitutional interpretation" but in my opinion, the "specific line you can draw" should be determined by the principles established through the clear language in conjunction with the clear intent of the constitution.

Unless and until one can discern with absolute clarity what the "clear intent" of the Constitution really is, this theory fails.

Different Justices can have widely differing interpretations of just what the "clear intent" of the Constitution is.

Be that as it may, that's not what the so-called strict constructionists are arguing. "Textualism", which is the strict constructionists theory du jour, says that there is no need for such interpretation; they say that the four corners of the Constitution render that document complete unto itself, and that the ONLY guide necessary is what the words meant when they were written.

Thus "NO LAW" in Amendment One and "EQUAL PROTECTION" in Amendment Fourteen allow no interpretation beyond what the words meant when adopted.

fatheromalley wrote:What is "extreme right"? I guess if I say the founder's intent is timeless, is that "extreme" right? http://www.fatheromalley.com

In fact it is.

The Founders' intent was not to create a Constitution that would be like a beetle encased in amber.

They were smarter than that; they knew that they were writing a document not only for their time, but also for our time.

They deliberately made it subject to changing interpretation as times changed.

Only the hard right would want to go back to an 18th Century interpretation of that founding document.

And there you have one of the fundamental difference between left and right.

The right believes in the principles as stated in our founding documents and the left believes everything is subject to their interpretation.

Believing in the constitution is NOT extremist. And it was NOT written to be "subject to changing interpretation as times changed." It was written with a mechanism by which it could be changed, by the people and their our representatives, as times warranted but that is not to say it's subject to "interpretation."

Only "extreme" lefties even suggest that those of us who believe in and support the constitution want to go back to the 18th century or as Whoopi alleged, want to go back to slavery. That's just absurd, hateful, and insane. No one wants that. The constitution was "constitutionally" changed and we "constitutional" types are particularly proud of that.

It's the ever evolving "interpretation" by the courts and the left that we reject.

We believe in a limited central government because history has taught us that's the only way people have the freedom, liberty and individual rights. Our founders gave us a Republic and proved that was how a nation and its people prosper. The left's attempts to destroy all that and become a nation like all the others seems not just radical and extreme but stupid and crazy.

So then you come down strongly in favor of kiddie porn and same sex marriage, right?

After all, doesn't the First Amendment say "Congress shall make NO LAW abridging Freedom of the Press."?

Doesn't the Fourteenth Amendment say that "No State shall make any law denying to any of its citizens the Equal Protection of the Laws."?

Bet you didn't stop to think about those little gems.

Those are not "little gems" but rather some of the more absurd arguments I've ever seen. Please reference my response to Pilgrim 1620. You are right, however, I did not "stop to think about" them.

The Founders' intent was not to create a Constitution that would be like a beetle encased in amber.

They were smarter than that; they knew that they were writing a document not only for their time, but also for our time.

They deliberately made it subject to changing interpretation as times changed.

Only the hard right would want to go back to an 18th Century interpretation of that founding document.

And there you have one of the fundamental difference between left and right.

The right believes in the principles as stated in our founding documents and the left believes everything is subject to their interpretation.

Believing in the constitution is NOT extremist. And it was NOT written to be "subject to changing interpretation as times changed." It was written with a mechanism by which it could be changed, by the people and their our representatives, as times warranted but that is not to say it's subject to "interpretation."

Only "extreme" lefties even suggest that those of us who believe in and support the constitution want to go back to the 18th century or as Whoopi alleged, want to go back to slavery. That's just absurd, hateful, and insane. No one wants that. The constitution was "constitutionally" changed and we "constitutional" types are particularly proud of that.

It's the ever evolving "interpretation" by the courts and the left that we reject.

We believe in a limited central government because history has taught us that's the only way people have the freedom, liberty and individual rights. Our founders gave us a Republic and proved that was how a nation and its people prosper. The left's attempts to destroy all that and become a nation like all the others seems not just radical and extreme but stupid and crazy.

So then you come down strongly in favor of kiddie porn and same sex marriage, right?

After all, doesn't the First Amendment say "Congress shall make NO LAW abridging Freedom of the Press."?

Doesn't the Fourteenth Amendment say that "No State shall make any law denying to any of its citizens the Equal Protection of the Laws."?

Bet you didn't stop to think about those little gems.

Those are not "little gems" but rather some of the more absurd arguments I've ever seen. Please reference my response to Pilgrim 1620. You are right, however, I did not "stop to think about" them.

Then you should, because they are the direct result of your mode of Constitutional interpretation.

Now, care to define NO LAW as used in the First Amendment in such a way as to exclude kiddie porn?

Care to define Equal Protection of the Laws as used in the Fourteenth Amendment in such a way as to exclude same sex marriage?

Some would like to include anything and everything into the definition of child porn that would encompass Jon Benet Ramsey's pageant photos and adults who only look underage. Others would like to include anything and everything into the definition of speech/expression to include the sexual assault of children and invasion of private property. Both are extreme absolutists, neither has much to do with accurately interpreting the first amendment.

Lord Worm wrote:Some would like to include anything and everything into the definition of child porn that would encompass Jon Benet Ramsey's pageant photos and adults who only look underage. Others would like to include anything and everything into the definition of speech/expression to include the sexual assault of children and invasion of private property. Both are extreme absolutists, neither has much to do with accurately interpreting the first amendment.

Interpret?

The Textualists tell us that the only thing judges need do is to look at the "Plain Word" of the text.

No interpretation necessary.

After all, aren't the words of the First and Fourteenth Amendment absolutist?

Can NO LAW be given any "interpretation" whatsoever besides NO LAW?

Can EQUAL PROTECTION be given any "interpretation" whatsoever besides EQUAL PROTECTION?